Until we change the assumptions of the theory to accommodate precambrian rabbit fossils because we cannot accept a result that contradicts our foundational assumptions accepting the theory of evolution. So upon discovering precambrian rabbit fossils we modify the theory to explain how even though this previously would have been considered to disprove evolution, now it only serves to further support the theory. Now, rather than the theory of evolution, we have evolution of the theory.
Kindly provide an example of this "evolution of the theory" having been done.
Creationists love to talk about science adapting theories to suit the evidence. They don't seem to realize the nature of science.
Punctuated equilibrium was posited to explain why species seem to emerge so suddenly in the geologic record, followed by long periods in which the species appears to change very little. These long periods of equilibrium were once seen as damning evidence against the theory, since it usually included the assumption that evolution was much more uniform, and that species should continue changing steadily.
As a meta-argument, PE is particularly interesting, because it can be characterized on its face as predicting a lack of evidence. That is, a theory is accepted when it makes testable conclusions; so what does one make of a theory that predicts its own untestability?
That isn't purely hypothetical, of course. There are religious folks who believe that faith must, by its nature, be without evidentiary foundation. In other words, their belief in God entails the prediction that proof of God's existence must be impossible to produce, else faith is rendered meaningless.
<disclaimer> I'm a Bible believer, and I do believe that God "hides his tracks" to some extent in this dispensation. However, I do not advance the lack of proof as proof in its own right. And given the strength of the evidence for evolution today, I spend my energy re-examining my interpretation of Genesis rather than dueling with scientists. I just visit crevo threads because I like blood.
According to evolutionary theory, grasses should not be found with dinosaurs because these plants did not evolve until 80 million years later.
Dinosaur poop shows grass is older than it seems
WASHINGTON -- Imagine dinosaur terrain -- full of ferns and palms, right? Better add some grass to that picture. A new discovery debunks the theory that grasses didn't emerge until long after the dinosaurs died off.Thus, either what scientists "knew" about the arrival of grass on the evolutionary scene, or what scientists "knew" about the disappearance of dinosaurs from the evolutionary scene from the respective fossil records turns out to be incorrect. So according to the evolutionists cited in the article, "long-standing assumptions" will have to be "reconsidered". (Evolution of the theory.)...
They didn't eat a lot of grass, the evidence shows. But grasses must have originated considerably earlier, well over 80 million years ago, for such a wide variety to have evolved in time to be munched by sauropods, they concluded.
"These remarkable results will force reconsideration of many long-standing assumptions" about dinosaur ecology, wrote Dolores Piperno and Hans-Dieter Sues of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in an accompanying review.